ZuluWarrior wrote:Shocked at how quick Schilz was disposed of. You have to think you give your starter the first half of the first game at the very least. We've seen the last of Schilz and I felt bad for him. Johnson can run, but they have to be able to throw deep and saw nothing to make me think that he can. I'm just not sure Johnson is a guy that can lead us to a championship this season. I'm not saying he can't, but last night left the question too wide open for my liking.
Schilz is not leading us to a championship. He looked better as a freshman than he does now. His arm may be stronger but how does that matter when you never get the throw off or throw an inaccurate pass? I agree that Johnson will have to be better but at least there is hope that he will. Schilz hit his ceiling and regressed 2 years ago.
...How is there a running back debacle Globe? Looked like we have at least 4 really good running backs. And Globe you bitched about how "QB hasn't been fixed" but yet you're still bitching after they go to Johnson?
In assessing the QB "controversy" step back and instead of looking to see if Johnson is better than Schilz I will say that Johnson is no worse than Schilz and on that point I'd be comfortable with him taking over fulltime as the QB. Yes, it sucks for Schilz but if he has plateaued or won't show improvement it's clear that Johnson has more upside and growth potential.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out especially the dynamic that the two Matts have given the appearance of being buddies. The whole team cohesiveness seems very strong and I hope this doesn't diminish that.
As Freak points out, Schilz will likely be called upon at some point this season and hoping he is ready.
Do we even have the horses for a downfield passing game to begin with? Joplin can jump, but I don't see much breakaway speed from him. I suppose if Moore becomes a passing threat that his speed may lead to that, but we can certainly win the MAC with no downfield passing game. Especially if we can run the ball effectively. That will in itself open up a passing game, downfield or not.
Bottom line, Schilz has no pocket presence and he never has. That's just a feel that you can't really learn, and that is his detriment.
I think we can win a lot of games with a qb who is a rushing threat and completes about 50% of his passes. This defense is so good that keeping the running game chugging and controlling the clock will be good enough against most of our schedule.
And I'm not going to argue that schilz would put us in better shape...he was poor last year and looked just as bad last night.
The problem is that I'm not yet convinced that either guy is good enough to win a Mac title with. No matter how great the defense and run game there always will be a game or two that you need your qb to make key throws. I'm not yet sold that either of these guys have the ability to make those throws....and that worries me. Hopefully Johnson improves...Joplin/gallon are too good to only see 2-3 balls a game.
Dayons_Den wrote:In assessing the QB "controversy" step back and instead of looking to see if Johnson is better than Schilz I will say that Johnson is no worse than Schilz and on that point I'd be comfortable with him taking over fulltime as the QB. Yes, it sucks for Schilz but if he has plateaued or won't show improvement it's clear that Johnson has more upside and growth potential.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out especially the dynamic that the two Matts have given the appearance of being buddies. The whole team cohesiveness seems very strong and I hope this doesn't diminish that.
As Freak points out, Schilz will likely be called upon at some point this season and hoping he is ready.
Like I said after the last scrimmage, if their play is near even, go with the younger guy who at least has the potential to get better. Andy Sahm gave it up to a much more inexperienced Harris and it was one of the best things to happen to this team in the last 20 years.
trooperden wrote:The best player should be on the field, winning is the name of the game
+1. The object is for the *team* to win and every individual has a role to play towards that end whether they contribute on the field or in a backup capacity. The second we start prioritizing emotion, vague notions of loyalty, personal feelings or any other factor over this is when the winning will stop.
I think Clawson realizes he has a defense to win a MAC championship. He's trying to find just enough offense to go along with that. I think he's leaning towards believing that Johnson gives him a better chance to put points on the board than Schiltz.
I think we could see either quaterback get significant playing time in any game based on the way the game plays out. At times Johnson will be more efective with his mobility and playmaking ability. At times, he'll need Schiltz to throw the ball down the field. Not a fan of quarterback by committee but I could see it happening.
Its a shame we couldn't of have this defense with the Omar Jacobs-led offense!
"Windows are for cheaters, chimneys for the poor.
Closets are for hangers, winners use the door."
Rollo83 wrote:I think Clawson realizes he has a defense to win a MAC championship. He's trying to find just enough offense to go along with that. I think he's leaning towards believing that Johnson gives him a better chance to put points on the board than Schiltz.
I think we could see either quaterback get significant playing time in any game based on the way the game plays out. At times Johnson will be more efective with his mobility and playmaking ability. At times, he'll need Schiltz to throw the ball down the field. Not a fan of quarterback by committee but I could see it happening.
Its a shame we couldn't of have this defense with the Omar Jacobs-led offense!
Very good point. Johnson helped us against Tulsa and didn't need to pass downfield (although that one pass to Joplin went pretty far). If he's incapable of doing that when the need arises, or becomes ineffective over a prolonged period of time, Schilz can be an option. We don't have to settle for someone who can't move the offense anymore.
I'll disagree with those saying we absolutely need a deep passing game to win the MAC. I think you need an EFFECTIVE passing game; but that doesn't mean you have to be able to go deep; just find open receivers who can move the chains.
I watched a guy named Brian Sipe win quite a few games for the Browns in the NFL, and he didn't really have a deep receiving threat on that team. It was all about finding open receivers and using the tight end and a stellar running game.
With the defense BG has, and the depth at running back (the deepest BG has been in RB talent I've seen since probably the early to mid 1970s), all Johnson has to do is find receivers in the seams and along the sidelines between 10-20 yards on a consistent basis, and not turn the ball over. If he can do that, this team will be very hard to beat in the MAC.
Also, is there any reason he shouldn't improve as he gets more playing time? He's never really been given an opportunity like this, so it will be interesting to see if he makes the most of it and the game slows down for him as he gains more on-field experience in real game situations.
As for Schilz: well, he gave BG three years and he simply didn't improve. In fact, we saw him regress last season. With that defense, BG should have won the East a year ago, but because the offense was so inconsistent, they couldn't win the close game(s) they needed to.
Having a QB who brings that extra dimension of athleticism to the position makes defensive coordinators game plan a little harder; and it's always hardest to account for the QB when putting a defensive game plan together. That's why spread offenses with running QBs have been so effective for the most part.
I applaud Clawson for having the quick hook because I think he knows this is the year it has to happen if it's going to happen for BG, and he simply can't wait and hope that Schilz suddenly gets good enough to make the offense even a little bit dangerous.
It is now potentially explosive and dangerous. We couldn't say that two days ago.
If they don't think you can throw it more than 20 yards...it gets increasingly difficult to find an open guy in the seams or one the sidelines 10-15 yards downfield.
It's not the fall that hurts...it's when you hit the ground.
Flipper wrote:If they don't think you can throw it more than 20 yards...it gets increasingly difficult to find an open guy in the seams or one the sidelines 10-15 yards downfield.
+1
My definition of "effective passing game" is getting the ball consistently to receivers on routes of 15-20 yards. Not sure Johnson's arm wil allow him to do that often enough.
"Windows are for cheaters, chimneys for the poor.
Closets are for hangers, winners use the door."
Wait, so did Clawson give a thorough explanation as to why Schilz was pulled so early? I tried finding something but wasn't able to. Watching from the stands yesterday it sure looked like Schilz didn't have enough time to prove his worth one way or another and pretty much everyone sitting around me was curious as well, especially after seeing a few of Johnson's throws, but I definitely think MJ's mobility was a huge positive for the offense. Could it be that the coaches identified that we were going to win the game by running over Tulsa instead of throwing over them which is what made Johnson the prime choice for the rest of the game?
Either way, I was glad to see us dominate Tulsa and was encouraged to see that our defense hasn't lost a step. Boo Boo Gates looked like a grown man out there.
BG '10
Attended more games than any responsible student should have.
Also, have we REALLY seen enough from Johnson yet to just assume that he can't throw a deep ball? He's only had 51 throws in his entire career and 23 of them came last night. And before last night he really had just one game played with 17 throws in mop-up duty in that lost cause at VT last year.
And let's not forget that we've never really had that much of a downfield threat with this current offensive coordinator anyway!
